Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [PERFORM] Postgres VS Oracle

> The most important point is that third one, I think:
>  "any application where reliability requirements do not warrant
>  spending $1M to make it more reliable"
>
> Adopting ORAC and/or other HA technologies makes it necessary to spend
> a Big Pile Of Money, on hardware and the humans to administer it.

If I were CIO that did not follow the Postgres groups regularly, I would 
take that to mean that Oracle is automatically more reliable than PG 
because you can spend a BPOM to make it so.

Let's ask a different question.  If you take BPOM / 2, and instead of 
buying Oracle, hire consultants to work on a PG solution, could the PG 
solution achieve the same reliability as Oracle?  Would it take the same 
amount of time?  Or heck, spend the full BPOM on hardening PG against 
failure - could PG achieve that reliability?

Or, by spending BPOM for Oracle strictly to get that reliability, are you 
only buying "enterpriseyness" (i.e. someone to blame and the ability to 
one-up a buddy at the golf course)?

Cheers,
-J